NashvilleCat wrote:Yes, you are correct they didn't squeak in that year but they had to play the Sharks - I didn't remember that correctly. The Sharks had 107 points and were a little less potent on offense and a little stingier on defense. It was a pretty closely contested series. The Preds scored 11 goals in his four losses - good but not great and four of those came in the 2OT loss in game 1. He lost 3-1, 3-2, and 3-2 after that.

They were the 8 seed his first year in the playoffs and lost to the Wings. He had a 2.02 GAA and stopped 93.9% of the shots he faced. He gave up 1 goal in two games at home. The Preds scored a total of three goals in his four losses.

He's only been in two series and he won three games for a franchise that only recently advanced past the first round for the first time. It's not like he played for a Cup favorite and caused them to exit in the first round on a regular basis. He's a veteran guy and the team responded well in front of him in Game 5. I don't think his lack of playoff experience limits his ability to play well in the playoffs.

Nor do I. What does worry me, though, is that the team seemed to start reverting back to bad hockey in Game 6. I hope the improved play in Game 5 wasn't just a shock or awakening due to the goalie change otherwise the team could be in trouble, especially against a stingy Ottawa team - can't expect to average 4.17 goals for per game against the Sens, and that means they also can't give up the average of 2.83 goals against per game that they did against the Islanders.

Look no further than the head coach then. He obviously abandoned the nice adjustments the team made in game 5 and went right back to his "system" in game 6. Once again it showed, as we chased the Isles all night, turned pucks over and were unable to gain the zone with speed or establish a forecheck.

Right from the drop of the puck in game 6, the d were standing back on controlled breakouts, not skating and the forwards were gone to the far blueline and redline.

You might think an adjustment would be made in the second period, but on the first two times we had the puck on a controlled breakout, we once again ran the stretch pass, and we promptly turned the puck over BOTH times.

What was equally frustrating was the fact that it was painfully obvious that when our defensemen skated the puck up, they had a ton of room to gain the blueline and dump it in. Or, when our forward(s) came down low and started to skate up ice withe the dman, we had an outlet that upon receiving the pass could gain the zone or dump it in with speed. Even if the defenseman didn't dish the puck off, having that forward starting down low opened up a ton more ice for the puck carrying defenseman.

It was so painfully obvious EVERY SINGLE TIME, yet our stubborn, pig headed, arrogant head coach ignored it and continued to run the stretch pass more often than not, and it continued to be unsuccessful.